Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[mgoforth]

If you go by the available information and the appearance, then God MUST be condemned - because according to the available hard information - which is NONEXISTENT and going by the appearances, God is at best: indifferent, at worst: malevolent.

Jesus Christ is the only hard evidence we need to see that God is perfect love. His life is historical fact. The manner of His death is historical, documented fact. His claims to divinity are documented facts. He spoke to thousands of people, not just the 12 Apostles. He wasn’t executed because He taught love and forgiveness…why would anyone have a problem with simple moral teachings? They murdered Him because He said, “I and the Father are one” and “Before Abraham was, I AM (which is our translation of the Holy Name of God)” and “No one comes to the Father except through me”.

The evidence has been provided. You must disprove Jesus Christ.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some more empty speculation. Are there some “facts” behind them? How would anyone know what God’s “plans” are?

You had no idea of his plans when you were born and no conception about what will happen when you die. Seems to be a pattern inherent in human existence. Perhaps it is a “needs to know” basis. Perhaps the reason you are so entrenched is that you want to be in control of the process and the ends, but if it is all far beyond the reach of your capabilities, knowing won’t help. You may not have the ways and means to facilitate the plan - you are the patient, not the chief surgeon.

Sure it is “speculative,” but not without good reasons. It also shows your “problem of evil” case against God does have giant holes in it. I can at least show the holes. You can choose to ignore or not look at them, but they are there, nonetheless.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As a matter of fact, we do not have (and cannot have) full information about the “motives, capacities, etc.” concerning other humans, but it does not stop us from making - tentative - value judgments. We go by the available information and employ the “duck principle”, in other words we go by the appearances - knowing fully well, that we might be mistaken. But as long as we are prepared to modify our hypothesis, IF and WHEN new information becomes available, we are on the right track.

Precisely, we have sufficient operating information to make pragmatic decisions concerning what is immediately good for ourselves because these typically are tied up in the circumstances that our limited purview can assess. The problem is in applying this limited perspective to God who needs to have a much wider one - the good of all moral agents and their development through all time and who likely has quite a different final end in mind than your 'biological being" ideal. A microscopic view is useless when a telescopic one is necessary.

Trurl:

If you wish to use a different procedure for God, then you are guilty of special pleading. If you go by the available information and the appearance, then God MUST be condemned - because according to the available hard information - which is NONEXISTENT and going by the appearances, God is at best: indifferent, at worst: malevolent.

To insist the same lens will suffice in both situations is myopic at best, especially if you define the “good” by only the information available to your myopic view. A patient insisting to their doctor that they only need rest and an aspirin when the doctor has prescribed quite a different remedy continues at their own peril, no matter how sure the patient feels that they are right and the doctor wrong. The expertise and knowledge of the doctor is warrant for not considering both treatment options equally. It is not “special pleading” to take the side of the doctor. The patient, like you, could very well insist that the expertise of the doctor (omniscience) is not needed in making the diagnosis or setting the course of treatment, but they’d be wrong.

And no “omniscience” needed, but one MUST be prepared to modify and/or discard this hypothesis, IF new information becomes available. Fat chance of that…

We can well imagine a stubborn patient saying exactly this. From their point of view they have enough evidence to make an informed decision. The doctor’s knowledge is unnecessary. There would be a fat chance of the patient changing their mind precisely because they are entrenched in the belief that there is a fat chance of the doctor or anyone else having information they do not have or knowing more than they do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Even according to your view, God is monster, since he creates all those beings who WILL end up in hell, which is definitely not in their best interest, and who did nothing to deserve such a fate.

No those are not the implications of my view. We carve out our own destiny by the choices we make. We are doing that right now. The present is the reality of our existence, a slice of God’s eternal presence. It is in the now that we have the opportunity by grace to come into the state of eternal bliss and infinite potential. God provides all that is needed for that to happen. Our choices determine the end result for ourselves. Once the hand is on the plow…

Choosing not to take part because God already knows the result is also a choice that will lead to a certain result. If God “foreknew” that, it only means that you chose that option. God might foreknow a different result precisely because you make the choice. The problem is that you are attempting to apply a physical causation paradigm to quite a different realm of existence.

 

[Viewscreen]

If that is your ideal view of the good life (no guilt, no regrets, no grievances) then the greatest possible good would be to develop a drug to convert all pain sensations to pleasurable ones and act without purpose or goals because all negative emotions would be nullified and your life simplified. Basically a pathetic (in the sense of miserably inadequate) view of life.

Non Sequitur. The elimination of some forms of (needless) suffering does not warrant the elimination of all. How could you be that blind?

Did you ever consider that emotions, even negative ones like guilt, regret or stress, have important roles to play in human development and ought to be attended to?

Sure there are negative emotions we can learn from. Loneliness and despair, for instance, have caused me to draw closer to peace. What value is there in indulging in guilt, regret or stress? We can learn from these emotions only insofar as we throw them off and away.

A different, and more credible view, is the Aristotelian one of actualizing human powers or virtues. This perspective would relegate minimizing pain as of little concern and incidental to the greater good of achieving full human potential by activating all the virtues or “powers” of the individual, free will being precisely the exercise of all human virtues (reason, practical wisdom, courage, fair mindedness, moderation, etc.). The exercise of these virtues is a challenge, but worth it because it results in a full and complete life, Aristotle’s definition of happiness.

I am quite sympathetic to the Aristotelian conception of self-actualizing powers, but don’t think free will is in any way an essential ingredient. Other factors should come into play, like right upbringing, and teaching especially.

This perspective makes much more sense and has a far loftier ideal than your “fatalistic,” avoid negative sensations, conception.

Please do not distort my position by turning me into some kind of shallow hedonist. The elimination of free will I would stress ends in the elimination of some forms of (needless) pain. Not all pain. Loss, for instance, might still be as acute as ever.

Your fatalistic view would advocate a "Why bother?"stance.

Non-sequitur. That question assumes the person without free will (as all of us are) is already in a state of mind wherein only that question sounds authoritative to him. But most of us are not so entrenched psychologically by depression or despair. What matters is to help these people get out of depression, not mock their pain any further.

Don’t stifle your present comfort level.

Another non-sequitur. Who are you to say what is best in a given situation? What situation is this, exactly, anyway?

Don’t point the finger at yourself or feel guilty about anything. Take a “simple” attitude. Why complicate things or feel guilty about possibly failing? Forget about it! Don’t stress yourself! Etc.

Sage advice, all of it.

As a result, you become less capable and have a lowered emotional threshold for stress and pain and probably increased levels of natural guilt because your “being” intuitively senses that it is not anywhere near achieving a minimal threshold of health.

Not as a result of the advice above. One is less capable for many deep and entrenched psychological reasons which need to be attended to, by some force, whether within or without the person. But inviting more stress, guilt, and pain (though it might serve as a means of motivation) will not “actualize” the person’s self. If anything (as we see in the cinema) humans might just continue trying harder and harder until all their personal effort implodes in despair.

The alternative actualizing human potential view would be based upon making deliberate, even difficult or painful choices (no pain no gain) to achieve a level of fitness and putting up with a bit of discomfort to achieve that end.

Which is why free will is a crock, because no one consciously makes those “difficult choices” unless they are already in a state of mind conducive to making them. What appears difficult to an enthusiastic young runner is impossible for a nerd moping around in his parents’ basement. I have absolutely no doubt about this.

Guilt functions as a motivational prompt and not an enemy. Once the fitness gains are achieved they correspond with a larger “human potential” teleology of which the physical component is only one facet. The “character” training of working through the demands of physical discipline and the endurance of “pain” pay off in other areas: personal and emotional discipline, willingness to take risks, courage in the face of adversity, endurance, stamina, overcoming fear, etc.

I am aware of the causative factors underpinning human growth in all endeavors. I admire their determinism. But I see no place for free will, anywhere. It is superfluous.

Even as a pragmatic strategy, your fatalistic conception lacks any compelling reason for adoption. It likewise fails in the realm of ethics.

I think my conception contains every conceivable reason for adoption. For besides the three benefits outlined above, I have come up with a fourth: one does not secondguess himself but leads an authentic life! Sticking to a decision and thus being in possession of far more courage.

As for ethics, it is unrelated.

 

[mgoforth]

Non Sequitur. The elimination of some forms of (needless) suffering does not warrant the elimination of all. How could you be that blind?

And God has done exactly that. He has prevented us from experiencing certain sufferings, while allowing us to experience certain others. Does anyone believe this is the worst possible world that could exist? I can imagine far worse things, and therefore it’s easy to see God’s blessings all around me.

The atheist on the otherhand, who believes him or herself to be smarter than their weak conception of God, says that we still experience too much suffering. It’s nothing but extreme pride to say, “My threshold of appropriate pain and suffering is the correct one, and all others are incorrect.” :nope: Atheism seems to have at its root an extreme lack of humility.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am aware of the causative factors underpinning human growth in all endeavors. I admire their determinism. But I see no place for free will, anywhere. It is superfluous.

What is to admire if it is all determined? Without free will (human free agency), to credit someone with something that could not have been otherwise is inherently nonsensical.

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper”

I think my conception contains every conceivable reason for adoption. For besides the three benefits outlined above, I have come up with a fourth: one does not secondguess himself but leads an authentic life! Sticking to a decision and thus being in possession of far more courage.

As for ethics, it is unrelated.

Whatever “adoption” means it can have nothing to do with considered choice or having “added options” because you have argued against that possibility all along. Why even advocate for a position that has been determined to either be or not? You are refuting your own position by claiming we have some kind of choice in the matter. Inherently inconsistent.

 

[mgoforth]

Whatever “adoption” means it can have nothing to do with considered choice or having “added options” because you have argued against that possibility all along. Why even advocate for a position that has been determined to either be or not? You are refuting your own position by claiming we have some kind of choice in the matter. Inherently inconsistent.

This is a good question…if our lives are deterministic, then we will either believe they are deterministic or we won’t, but there doesn’t seem to be any possibility of convincing anyone either way without free will. So why bother posting to internet forums at all?

:hypno: (that’s supposed to be a zombie BTW )

 

[Viewscreen]

What is to admire if it is all determined? Without free will (human free agency), to credit someone with something that could not have been otherwise is inherently nonsensical.

When it comes to crediting someone, I can admire them the same way I admire a mountain or a sunrise at sea. They got to the point they have through tiresome work (in the case of athletes), and that is certainly… estimable in some sense. The fact that they experienced all those things, sheds light on who they are. So their accomplishments are far from meaningless.

Whatever “adoption” means it can have nothing to do with considered choice or having “added options” because you have argued against that possibility all along. Why even advocate for a position that has been determined to either be or not? You are refuting your own position by claiming we have some kind of choice in the matter. Inherently inconsistent.

I advocate this position, though I am not in control, as an aid to help… REALIZE the fact that we are not in control. And thus, to free the human mind.

It is all determined. But another very interesting thought has come to me… if everything is determined for good in the end by some intelligence… Than it certainly DOES matter that things were determined a certain way. This is very interesting to me right now.

Perhaps us realizing this fact is a form of evolution.

 

[mgoforth]

I advocate this position, though I am not in control, as an aid to help… REALIZE the fact that we are not in control. And thus, to free the human mind.

If we’re deterministic meat robots…then how is realizing that going to free us? We’d still be robots… If what you claim is true, then understanding or believing it changes absolutely nothing! If I’m feeling guilty when I should really feel free to do whatever I want, how could I ever get from one point of view to the other…since I can’t choose to get there??

 

[Viewscreen]

If we’re deterministic meat robots…then how is realizing that going to free us? We’d still be robots… If what you claim is true, then understanding or believing it changes absolutely nothing! If I’m feeling guilty when I should really feel free to do whatever I want, how could I ever get from one point of view to the other…since I can’t choose to get there??

Don’t give me the same tired “we’re all robots” routine. Please… anything but that. I just find it so overused… that I could die.

Anyway, to give a concrete example: let’s say someone in the world is feeling guilty over the thing he did (perhaps he had a deep religious upbringing). Furthermore, he is quite ignorant of psychology and the brain. He is also willfully ignorant of the circumstances leading up to, I don’t know, stealing a pen. It’s a neurotic guilt no one should stress over, let’s leave it at that. Suddenly, I, an angel () swoop down and give him all this information about how he isn’t responsible. A light bulb starts to shine, and he feels, directly, that he is no more responsible. After that he leads a much less guilty, neurotic lifestyle.

 

[mgoforth]

Don’t give me the same tired “we’re all robots” routine. Please… anything but that. I just find it so overused… that I could die.

Sorry, please suggest your preferred term so I don’t offend you. When I think of something that seems alive, yet carries out actions deterministically with no free will, I think: robot, zombie, animal, etc. What do you choose to call yourself?

Anyway, to give a concrete example: let’s say someone in the world is feeling guilty over the thing he did (perhaps he had a deep religious upbringing). Furthermore, he is quite ignorant of psychology and the brain. He is also willfully ignorant of the circumstances leading up to, I don’t know, stealing a pen. It’s a neurotic guilt no one should stress over, let’s leave it at that. Suddenly, I, an angel () swoop down and give him all this information about how he isn’t responsible. A light bulb starts to shine, and he feels, directly, that he is no more responsible. After that he leads a much less guilty, neurotic lifestyle.

But what does it matter? From your point of view we’re just collections of molecules bumping together and the math that determines everything has already been laid down eons ago…so why would you even care about such things as guilt or freedom? Don’t you realize that those are just electrical signals in your brain, and as such they’re virtually indistiguishable from one another? Why is your favorite electrical signal any “better” than mine? And how can anything be “better” or “worse” in a deterministic universe anyway?? Everything just…is. So again, why are you wasting your time trying to set off lightbulbs? I thoroughly don’t get it…

But then again, perhaps that’s my fate?

 

[Viewscreen]

But what does it matter? From your point of view we’re just collections of molecules bumping together and the math that determines everything has already been laid down eons ago…so why would you even care about such things as guilt or freedom? Don’t you realize that those are just electrical signals in your brain, and as such they’re virtually indistiguishable from one another? Why is your favorite electrical signal any “better” than mine? And how can anything be “better” or “worse” in a deterministic universe anyway?? Everything just…is. So again, why are you wasting your time trying to set off lightbulbs? I thoroughly don’t get it…

But then again, perhaps that’s my fate?

Rest assured that everything you brought up in that paragraph is irrelevant when it comes to acting on the knowledge you have and making the best of it, free will or no free will.

Perhaps it will be your fate to be perpetually confused but… I am trying to reach you out through this computer and tell you to take consideration of your better impulses. That will bring you to a more desirable place.

But yes, if I fail, than you will unfortunately be confused.

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

We can well imagine a stubborn patient saying exactly this. From their point of view they have enough evidence to make an informed decision. The doctor’s knowledge is unnecessary. There would be a fat chance of the patient changing their mind precisely because they are entrenched in the belief that there is a fat chance of the doctor or anyone else having information they do not have or knowing more than they do.

As long as the doctor does not choose to reveal the reasons, and only insists that he is believed on blind trust, his credibility is lowered. Yet, if there would be a real, flesh-and-blood doctor, who would insist, it would not be so bad. He might refer to his diploma, and might attempt to give a watered-down, simplified explanation, suitable for the patient’s level of knowledge. But, of course this is not the case here. We only have a bunch of self-appointed non-entities, who insist that they speak for the doctor. When asked about their credentials, there is nothing. You seem to misunderstand my point. You (in general, all of you) have absolutely no credibility. You are not in the position to talk for God. If God refuses to speak up for himself, then we are in the position to form our value-judgments based upon the available information, and the judgment is not favorable. By the way, you did fall into the trap of special pleading. Shame, shame…
Peter Plato:

No those are not the implications of my view. We carve out our own destiny by the choices we make.

Baloney. We can only be the “carvers” of our destiny when we are already created. I will attempt to explain it one more time, making it slow and easy, so you can comprehend it.

1. God knows Joe’s final destiny before he is even created - which is eternal torture.
2. God can choose to create Joe or not.
3. God’s assumed “love” means that he acts in Joe’s best interest.
4. It is not in Joe’s best interest to be tortured forever.
5. God nevertheless creates Joe.
6. 1. and 5) are contradictory. Therefore God is not “loving”. Is this simple enough for you? If you do not or cannot understand this, I am not about to waste any more time on you.

It is fine that you guys are irrational. I do not expect anything better. But that you are also illogical, and do not understand your own religion’s implications… that is too much.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Baloney. We can only be the “carvers” of our destiny when we are already created. I will attempt to explain it one more time, making it slow and easy, so you can comprehend it.

1. God knows Joe’s final destiny before he is even created - which is eternal torture.
2. God can choose to create Joe or not.
3. God’s assumed “love” means that he acts in Joe’s best interest.
4. It is not in Joe’s best interest to be tortured forever.
5. God nevertheless creates Joe.
6. 1. and 5) are contradictory. Therefore God is not “loving”. Is this simple enough for you? If you do not or cannot understand this, I am not about to waste any more time on you.

It is fine that you guys are irrational. I do not expect anything better. But that you are also illogical, and do not understand your own religion’s implications… that is too much.

Premise 1 is problematic. God only “knows” Joe’s destiny to the extent that Joe decides it. Joe’s destiny is not fixed and therefore not “known” by God when and until Joe actually decides it through his choices. God cannot “know” what does not exist.

Knowing Joe’s destiny “from eternity” only locates God’s perspective. That does not entail that God knew it “before” Joe decided it because there is no “before” with God.

Before and after are only “imaginary” terms and in effect non-existent and not real. Our existence in the present is a participation in the eternal and that is all that exists. The future is indeterminate.

Don’t try to tell me what I think.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When it comes to crediting someone, I can admire them the same way I admire a mountain or a sunrise at sea. They got to the point they have through tiresome work (in the case of athletes), and that is certainly… estimable in some sense. The fact that they experienced all those things, sheds light on who they are. So their accomplishments are far from meaningless.

You might admire a mountain for its beauty but not for its “determination” to resist the elements. Mountains or sunrises do not accomplish anything. They just are. Athletes, in your view do not accomplish anything either, they just are athletes. We could not even say they are “good” in any sense either. It would be like pointing to a mountain and claiming, “That mountain is a “good” one!” What sense would that have?

We intuitively see a difference between 1) deliberated or volitional actions where choices to act otherwise come into play and where outcomes are open and 2) determined ones, where no alternatives are possible.

Human acts are type 1) not type 2).

 

[Viewscreen]

You might admire a mountain for its beauty but not for its “determination” to resist the elements. Mountains or sunrises do not accomplish anything. They just are. Athletes, in your view do not accomplish anything either, they just are athletes.

Actually, I would admire many things in an athlete. His will-force, his psychic core which has managed to withstand a great deal of pressures, and which is identified with a personality. I can admire many things, even though I believe he/she is not strictly speaking the “doer” of his actions, but forces coalescing within him.

We intuitively see a difference between 1) deliberated or volitional actions where choices to act otherwise come into play and where outcomes are open and 2) determined ones, where no alternatives are possible.

Human acts are type 1) not type 2).

I see less and less difference day by day.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Premise 1 is problematic. God only “knows” Joe’s destiny to the extent that Joe decides it.

Furthermore, there may, in fact, be different senses in which God “knows” things. One sense may be the “actualizing” of a possibility. So when God “knows” in this way, God brings it into reality, so to speak. However, another sense of “knowing” (in your premise 1 terms) may be merely a complete awareness of all possibilities for you. He “knows” your destiny because he is acutely aware of “every possibility” for you. He may know all the possibilities and hence “know” your complete destiny in terms of every single possibility for you, but doesn’t “know” (in the sense of make actual) your destiny until you determine it. A strong reason for thinking this is true is because reality only actualized in the “now.” Only the “now,” the present exists, so things are only actualized in the now. Your final destiny is not in the now, it hasn’t happened, so it cannot have been actualized by God in the strong sense of “his knowing” (making actual) your fate. Until your fate is made actual (comes into the present and made real) it remains undetermined and therefore only possible, and therefore possibly altered.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God refuses to speak up for himself, then …

God’s refusal to speak up is, in reality, the flip side of our refusal to listen. If he is omniscient then he knows your listening “availability” and therefore wouldn’t waste time trying to speak to closed ears. On the other hand, He would also know your capacity to understand and therefore could only express himself in ways that you could comprehend. So y/our resistance to being open to the flip side of y/our own convictions might just be the obstacle that God must overcome.

 

[mgoforth]

Rest assured that everything you brought up in that paragraph is irrelevant when it comes to acting on the knowledge you have and making the best of it, free will or no free will.

Hmmm…so I should just trust you in other words? I should have faith in you? Pretty much blind faith at that, since you didn’t answer a single one of my questions… Very interesting. Why would I have faith in you over God? At least God’s Church has answers to questions.

Perhaps it will be your fate to be perpetually confused but… I am trying to reach you out through this computer and tell you to take consideration of your better impulses. That will bring you to a more desirable place.

But yes, if I fail, than you will unfortunately be confused.

My friend, I’m not a bit confused. Let me share a little about myself.

I’ve already tried what you’re suggesting here. I lived that way for years, actually. I forgot about God and tried to free my mind to see that black is the same as white, and that there’s no difference between “wrong” and “right”. I basically did whatever I wanted. And I was miserable. Only now do I see how unhappy it all made me. I’m tired of serving only myself, and I want to serve God. I’m happier now, even when life is hard and even when I feel guilty. We’re trying to reach out to you through your computer and let you know that those “better impulses” you’re talking about are just empty selfishness. I’ve had enough of being a slave to my own impulses. I’m stronger than that now through Christ…I control my impulses, they no longer control me.